U.S. Consumer Attitudes toward Antibiotic Use in Livestock Production

Meerza, Syed Imran Ali; Gulab, Sabrina; Brooks, Kathleen R.; Gustafson, Christopher R.; Yiannaka, Amalia

doi:10.3390/su14127035

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our sample was predominantly female, younger, and more highly educated than the adult US population. Women tend to be more likely to be primary shoppers, so it is not surprising that the sample had a higher percentage of women than men and, in fact, this was similar to the percentage of women in previous studies that targeted primary shoppers [33,34,72,73]. Individuals with higher education levels tend to have better outcomes [63,74], while older individuals pay greater attention to certain aspects of food choices [33].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Health Prompts Affect Consideration of Health but Not Intertemporal Preferences While Promoting Healthier Food Choices

Tuyizere,

Gustafson,

Rose

2024

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diet-related diseases impact populations across the globe. While intertemporal preferences—a fundamental preference for the distribution of benefits across time—have been used to explain low-quality food choices, the recent literature proposes another cause: inattention to the future implications (or opportunity costs) of the options faced. Food choices tend to become habitual to conserve cognitive resources, rather than carefully modeling future health impacts. Both low discount rates for future benefits and attention to future health impacts predict healthier decisions. While intertemporal preferences are stable, attention may provide an opportunity to intervene in the decision process to promote healthier decisions. In this study, we test the impact of a simple message that highlights health during food choice on the healthiness of the foods chosen and on health consideration and intertemporal preferences. Our results show that actively considering health outcomes and lower discount rates lead to healthier food choices. We find that messaging increases the consideration of health outcomes during food choice but does not affect intertemporal preferences, suggesting that simple prompts may be an effective way to promote decisions balancing short- and long-term benefits by drawing attention to the overlooked opportunity costs of choices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Health Prompts Affect Consideration of Health but Not Intertemporal Preferences While Promoting Healthier Food Choices

Tuyizere,

Gustafson,

Rose

2024

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But acceptance can vary with the use of the antibiotic. Meerza et al [30] found that only 14% of US consumers found antibiotic use as a growth promoter acceptable, but over 50% found the use of antibiotics to treat and control infections acceptable. Some consumers expect that no use of antibiotics means better animal welfare, when the opposite may well be true [28,30].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Meerza et al [30] found that only 14% of US consumers found antibiotic use as a growth promoter acceptable, but over 50% found the use of antibiotics to treat and control infections acceptable. Some consumers expect that no use of antibiotics means better animal welfare, when the opposite may well be true [28,30]. Meerza et al [30], for example, found that US respondents who believed antibiotic use reduces animal welfare were more likely to be concerned about the use of antibiotics to treat, prevent and control disease than respondents who viewed antibiotics as contributing to better animal welfare.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer Preferences and Attitudes towards Antibiotic Use in Food Animals

Adam,

Bruce

2023

Antibiotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the major challenges faced by society, with the real threat of the failure of many medical procedures. Antibiotics are also used in livestock production and provide a potential pathway to increasing AMR. The central challenge involves ensuring animal health and welfare while securing the long-term effectiveness of antibiotics. This paper reports the results of a survey of 5693 respondents from the customer panels of four major UK supermarkets regarding preferences and attitudes towards antibiotic use in food animals, and their perspectives on how the balance between animal welfare and human benefit can be achieved. The results of these surveys are consistent with those from other countries that found that consumers generally have limited knowledge about antibiotic use in agriculture and AMR, with around 50% responding “don’t know” to many questions. There was agreement about the benefits of antibiotics outweighing harm, with 40% agreeing that, overall, the use of antibiotics to treat disease in farm animals delivers more benefit than harm. However, 44% neither agreed nor disagreed, indicating a high level of uncertainty and a situation that is potentially unstable. The seriousness of the AMR challenge is such that continued action for the more discriminating use of antibiotics must continue.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, some consumers considered the preventive use of antibiotics as a normative and standard practice in farming [ 62 ]. Research in the US revealed that only about one third of consumers were very concerned about the preventive use of antibiotics in food animals and even less of them considered the preventive use as unacceptable [ 61 ]. These findings suggested that consumers have little knowledge about the preventive use of antibiotics in food animals and limited understanding of the health risks associated with it.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of information provision on consumers’ risk perceptions of, support for a ban, and behavioral intention towards the preventive use of antibiotics in food animals

Zhou,

Zhang,

van Klinken

et al. 2024

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Antibiotics have been widely used in feed and drinking water for food animals to prevent them from getting sick. Such preventive use of antibiotics has become a contributor to increasing antibiotic resistance and thus poses threats to human health. However, consumers have little knowledge about this practice and the associated health risks of increasing transmission of antibiotic residues and antibiotic resistant bacteria. This study aimed to examine the effect of information provision on consumers’ risk perceptions, support for a ban, and behavioral intention regarding the preventive use of antibiotics in food animals. Especially, the study sought to test two competing hypotheses which were informed by two theoretical perspectives of fear appeal theory — the linear model and the plateau effect model. The former suggested that providing information on the health risks of both antibiotic residues and antibiotic resistant bacteria would have a stronger effect compared to providing information on only one of them, while the latter posited that providing information on both risks might not have additional influence, as the effect of information on either risk could reach the plateau. Methods An experimental study with four conditions was conducted where participants read different information on the health risks associated with the preventive use first and then answered questions regarding consumers’ risk perceptions, support for a ban, and behavioral intention regarding the preventive use. Condition 1 was the control condition, where basic information about antibiotics, antibiotic resistance, and the preventive use was provided. Condition 2 and Condition 3 further added information on the health risk of antibiotic residues (Condition 2) and antibiotic resistant bacteria (Condition 3) due to the preventive use, respectively. Condition 4 provided all information contained in the first three conditions. Results The results showed that compared to participants in the control condition, participants in Conditions 2-4 reported higher risk perceptions, stronger support for a ban on the preventive use, and a higher intention to buy meat produced without the preventive use of antibiotics. However, there were no significant differences in these factors between Conditions 2-4, indicating that providing information on the health risk of either antibiotic residues, or antibiotic resistant bacteria, or both, has similar effect on these variables. That is, the hypothesis based on the plateau effect model was supported. Conclusions The findings suggested that informing the public with the health risk of either antibiotic residues or antibiotic resistant bacteria associated with the preventive use is effective enough to reach plateau effect in increasing risk perceptions, support for a ban, and behavioral intention, which has important implications for policymakers and livestock industries to develop effective communication strategies to promote responsible antibiotic use in food animals.

show abstract

U.S. Consumer Attitudes toward Antibiotic Use in Livestock Production

Cited by 5 publications

References 32 publications

Health Prompts Affect Consideration of Health but Not Intertemporal Preferences While Promoting Healthier Food Choices

Health Prompts Affect Consideration of Health but Not Intertemporal Preferences While Promoting Healthier Food Choices

Consumer Preferences and Attitudes towards Antibiotic Use in Food Animals

The effect of information provision on consumers’ risk perceptions of, support for a ban, and behavioral intention towards the preventive use of antibiotics in food animals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About